On 02-05-2011 02:04:57 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Having the servers do that, will also allow us to provide cut down
> > Changelogs ( lets say keep that last 10 entries ) so we can provide
> > a more minimal portage tree, size wise.
>
> Ten is way too small. Chances are that after one round
On 01-05-2011 19:43:48 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> My personal feeling is that we should keep the changelogs as-is, and
> include removals, until we're on git. Then we should re-evaluate.
git doesn't magically solve all the problems!
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
2011/5/2 Mike Frysinger :
> i dont think so. i cant see RDEPENDing on a random tftp server being
> terribly useful here, and it certainly isnt a requirement. elog it
> and be done.
> -mike
>
Ok, please take a look at net-misc/ris-linux. It's used for network
installing windows, therefore user wil
> On Mon, 2 May 2011, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you
> list some use-cases besides editing of typos?
Fixing typos should be enough reason alone. It also happened to me
more than once that I specified a wrong bug number, or that I add
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:21:37 +0300
Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> Taking the latest portage snapshot from a mirror, the sum* of the
> apparent sizes of all its files (forgetting directories, filesystems.
> overhead etc.) is ~189Mb. The sum of ChangeLog files is ~66Mb, that
> is a ~35% fracti
On Sun, 1 May 2011 13:43:25 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Beyond that... I suspect *everyone* would appreciate optimization
> done to echangelog. From a quick look... seems like it's cvs status,
> than a cvs diff. Trying to collapse that into a single op, falling
> back to status might not be a
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:12:01 +0400
Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Сбт, 30/04/2011 в 12:02 +0300, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> > On 04/30/2011 11:46 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > I propose a simple new text: "Every commit should have an entry in
> > > ChangeLog."
>
> Nonfunctional commits should not be reco
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:12:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 11:03 AM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
[..]
> It no where in the link you provided mentions ChangeLog is required
> for removals. Removing an unused eb
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:50:01AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you list
>> some use-cases besides editing of typos?
> One that I have seen before was the change of a URL for
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:50:01AM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> I don't get why someone would want to edit ChangeLogs. Could you list
> some use-cases besides editing of typos?
One that I have seen before was the change of a URL for users to migrate
their data, when upstream changed the URL. Th
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
>> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the
>> Changelog and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of
>> having the rsync servers create the Changelogs before popu
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 19:43:48 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring
> wrote:
>> Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
>> crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
>
> Well, more like get any one of the keys and y
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-05-01 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
sci-libs/libgeda2011-04-25 13:35:52 tomjbe
media-plugins/gmpc-coveramazon 2011-04-27 20:40:50 angelos
media-plugins/gmp
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
> > What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
> > still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
> > of a loss of int
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:04:57AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 May 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
>
> Ten is way too small. Chances are that after one round of
> stabilisations the ChangeLog entry for the last real change to the
> package will be gone. We should keep at least one
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 07:43:48PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
> > crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
>
> My personal feeling is that we should keep the change
> On Sun, 1 May 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the
> Changelog and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of
> having the rsync servers create the Changelogs before populate the
> portage tree.
A separate ChangeLog has the advan
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> Get at that key, and you've got the tree, versus the current form,
> crack all signing keys and you've got the tree.
Well, more like get any one of the keys and you get the tree, since
portage only validates that a trusted key signed a packag
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:23:40PM +, Duncan wrote:
> What about having a dedicated server-based changlog-signing key? That's
> still a lot of signing with a single key, but as you observed, the hazards
> of a loss of integrity there aren't as high as with most of the tree
> content. It'd
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 23:49:06 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:33:25PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
>> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
>>> and on the comm
Markos Chandras posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 22:08:31 +0100 as excerpted:
> Having the servers do that, will also allow us to provide cut down
> Changelogs ( lets say keep that last 10 entries ) so we can provide a
> more minimal portage tree, size wise.
What about cutting it to the largest whole n
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 03:33:25PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
> > and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of having the rsync
> > servers create
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Since most ( if not all ) of us use the same message on the Changelog
> and on the commit log, it probably worth the effort of having the rsync
> servers create the Changelogs before populate the portage tree. Having
> the servers d
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 17:01, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 2011/5/2 Ciaran McCreesh:
>> Since suggested dependencies don't exist yet, what's wrong with just
>> elogging a message suggesting the user install a tftp server of their
>> choice?
>
> I think this is uncomfortable for user.
i dont think so. i
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:00:17PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 30-04-2011 11:46:37 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> > ChangeLog entries is. See:
2011/5/2 Ciaran McCreesh :
> If it doesn't care about what the tftp server is, presumably that means
> that the package itself doesn't actually use the tftp server (and if
> it did call the tftp server, it would need to know the syntax for each
> individual package, so it wouldn't be a virtual). So
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:06:47PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
This argument sucks; if the tool
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> I'm going to add such a package to the tree tomorrow,
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365605. Can you write ebuild
> for this virtual, because i'm not familliar with new-style virtuals
> yet?
>
>
Just create an package "virtual/tftp-
On Sun, 1 May 2011 23:04:54 +0400
Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Assuming we have a package, that want to have any tftp server on
> system, no matter which one exactly, what must we set in DEPEND? I
> think creating virtual for tftp server would be nice.
If it doesn't care about what the tftp server is,
I'm going to add such a package to the tree tomorrow,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365605. Can you write ebuild
for this virtual, because i'm not familliar with new-style virtuals
yet?
All,
the trigger has been pulled so to speak -- the news item is now in the
tree.
I did not have any links for the last paragraph (the section that
referred people to other places for support etc), so I had to remove
that.
As far as I know, we are moving forward with stabilization on
2011/05/08.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/01/2011 03:04 PM, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Hi,
> Assuming we have a package, that want to have any tftp server on
> system, no matter which one exactly, what must we set in DEPEND? I
> think creating virtual for tftp server would be nice.
> Maxim
Hi,
Assuming we have a package, that want to have any tftp server on
system, no matter which one exactly, what must we set in DEPEND? I
think creating virtual for tftp server would be nice.
Maxim
On Sunday 01 of May 2011 12:09:15 Eray Aslan wrote:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:06:47PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> > echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> > into committing them. That's j
On 01-05-2011 14:55:24 +, Duncan wrote:
> Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename
> > ChangeLog.gen
>
> Had to laugh at that one. =:^)
Apologies, the .gen extension apparently made the MIME matc
Fabian Groffen posted on Sun, 01 May 2011 12:00:17 +0200 as excerpted:
> Attachment not shown: MIME type chemical/x-genbank; filename
> ChangeLog.gen
Had to laugh at that one. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use
On 01-05-2011 17:04:18 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Вск, 01/05/2011 в 12:25 +, Fabian Groffen (grobian) пишет:
> > grobian 11/05/01 12:25:59
>
> > Fix econf call for Prefix: don't mix Prefix compatible and incompatible
> > code
>
> > src_configure() {
> > econf \
> > -
В Вск, 01/05/2011 в 12:25 +, Fabian Groffen (grobian) пишет:
> grobian 11/05/01 12:25:59
> Fix econf call for Prefix: don't mix Prefix compatible and incompatible code
> src_configure() {
> econf \
> - --libdir=/$(get_libdir)
> + --libdir="${EPREFIX}"/$(ge
В Вск, 01/05/2011 в 13:44 +0300, Panagiotis Christopoulos пишет:
> On 12:06 Sun 01 May , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > So not only they are rather useless, and information you can easily
> get
> > from sources.gentoo.org, they take your time as well.
>
> Then, let's change it to:
>
> "Though not
Am Sonntag 01 Mai 2011, 11:06:47 schrieb Samuli Suominen:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
Ever heard of opening a second terminal?
Am Sonntag 01 Mai 2011, 12:54:52 schrieb Panagiotis Christopoulos:
> > What is it really that is holding us up? A dev to spearhead the move?
>
> I had the same question yesterday but after checking [1], I can tell
> that it's not so simple as it seems when you first think of it.
>
> [1] https://
On 13:09 Sun 01 May , Eray Aslan wrote:
> What is it really that is holding us up? A dev to spearhead the move?
I had the same question yesterday but after checking [1], I can tell
that it's not so simple as it seems when you first think of it.
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33
On 12:06 Sun 01 May , Samuli Suominen wrote:
> So not only they are rather useless, and information you can easily get
> from sources.gentoo.org, they take your time as well.
Then, let's change it to:
"Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry
in ChangeLog. Though
On 01-05-2011 12:06:47 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
Dude, you should have stuck with your argumen
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 12:06:47PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> ... the time alone if you have to stop on each package to wait for
> echangelog to get done just doubles the amount of time you have to put
> into committing them. That's just not worth the effort.
Won't moving the tree to git will
On 30-04-2011 11:46:37 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/changelog/index.html
>
> There doesn't seem to be a common opinion on what the policy for
> ChangeLog entries is. See:
>
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f829da2375f1ceab766a800913
On 05/01/2011 11:39 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On 04/30/2011 10:40 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> On 04/28/2011 04:07 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> So once again:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
>>>
>>> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "
On 04/30/2011 10:40 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On 04/28/2011 04:07 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>> So once again:
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/docs/en/html/lifecycle.html
>>
>> *Every* new bug filed by a user without editbugs will have "UNCONFIRMED"
>> (old NEW) as fixed status.
>> *If* we don
On 04/30/2011 11:39 PM, Panagiotis Christopoulos wrote:
> On 12:02 Sat 30 Apr , Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> "Every new file, and modification to existing file should have an entry
>> in ChangeLog." to skip the proper ChangeLog-less removals.
>
> There is something I can't undestand reading al
49 matches
Mail list logo
